tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2158853543793456735.post8230210571316473866..comments2023-10-02T04:50:01.667-07:00Comments on VoIPNorm's Collaboration Blog: Lync Native Features Versus Plugins: Where Does The Real Complexity Reside?Chris Normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07200178774058910421noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2158853543793456735.post-47579834342468658632012-04-13T20:23:19.708-07:002012-04-13T20:23:19.708-07:00Hi Anon,
You seem to be addressing a completely d...Hi Anon,<br /><br />You seem to be addressing a completely different post which I have posted below incase people are confused. I suggest anyone reading this comment please take a look at the post below along with the 65 comments addressed within it. <br /><br />http://voipnorm.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-avaya-arent-telling-you-about-ace.html<br /><br />Direct SIP is the most common way I currently see companies doing interoperability today. I see less and less companies willing to add complexity at the desktop and instead choose to take the direct SIP path even if they don't plan to replace the PBX because the complexity you tried to convey isn't true. In fact the integration at the desktop is typically seen as the more complex of the two since now instead of one back end integration you add it to every desktop.<br /><br />While direct SIP may not provide desk phone presence what most companies are beginning to realize is that the cost and complexity of desk phone presence isn't worth the complexity of a plugin when doing interoperability between two platforms. Even after trialing plugins against native I have yet to see a company side with the plugin but instead are siding with direct SIP because of the limitations and complexities I have described in this post. After having worked on large scale desktop deployments deploying plugins to any application is typically not a well liked experience for any company. Although its sometimes unavoidable to get the features a company wants in this case its avoidable and the interoperability can be kept to the backend which is seamless to the user.<br /><br />If people are interested in trialing a Lync plugin, I would suggest doing both plugin and native and comparing the experience fo both. I know that's what I did when I worked as an engineer at a global company and found the plugin experience less than favorable which is why we went with native features.Chris Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07200178774058910421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2158853543793456735.post-14741578569949872122012-04-13T18:23:15.617-07:002012-04-13T18:23:15.617-07:00This is a very nice post however it does not repre...This is a very nice post however it does not represent the entire truth about API integrations that Microsoft promotes. As an example, in the MS Lync architecture the 3rd party gateways typically needed (AudioCodes, .net, etc.) are not reflected which basically acts as Lync’s voice PBX gateway (similar to a traditional PBX). Remember that any relatively new voice solution (Avaya, Cisco, Microsoft, etc.) all have a Voice Server and typically a Media Gateway. They all have presence/federation, conferencing, video, soft clients, mobility, CEBP and other features. They all run SIP but also maintain backward compatibility with H.323, TDM and other legacy protocols (which shouldn’t be a bad thing in the case of investment protection or selective distance requirements).<br /> <br />The value for Direct SIP integration is if you have made the decision to migrate from an existing voice system to a full Lync (“full” meaning Lync desktop with E-CALs and those Gateways with Plus CALs) and need a “temporary” integration during a phased migration. The problem with this long term is that you will have to manage two systems instead of one (routing tables, extensions, etc). Your end users could have two phone numbers instead of one. The existing telephone may not show presence status to the rest of the enterprise and you may not be able to switch between your existing telephone and Lync soft phone easily. End users may be confused on when to use their Lync soft client versus their existing telephone. All these issues go away with API integration for most platforms.<br /><br />Some other considerations to understand on the value of Microsoft’s API integration with Lync include:<br />• VPNLess Access – Yes, the standard is an SBC (Session Border Controller) which is preferred over the proprietary MS Edge server. (Avaya ACE supports in 6.2).<br />• Federation Support – Yes, they support standards based Federation. (Avaya, Cisco, etc.)<br />• Communications Enabled Business Processes (CEBP) – Yes, most support CEBP (Avaya, Cisco, etc.)<br />• Video Support – Yes, they have their own. (Avaya ACE supports Lync Video in 6.2)<br />• E911 Support – Yes, they have had this since before Lync/OCS was in existence. (Avaya, Cisco, etc.)<br />• Dynamic Bandwidth – Yes, they have had several bandwidth features for years. (Avaya, Cisco, etc.)<br />• Audio Conferencing – Yes, they have their own or can integrate with Lync Conferencing. (Avaya ACE can do both)<br />• Media Encryption – Yes, Avaya can encrypt all portions when using standards based encryption.<br />• Reliability – Yes, if the Lync servers go down, the core voice (Avaya ACE example) still provides up to 99.999 uptime for dial tone in Avaya’s case.<br /><br />For the Avaya ACE (API) integration with Lync, think of it as the link to enable the Avaya core voice functionality with the Lync Desktop features (instead of deploying AudioCodes Gateways, etc.). Like explained previously, all newer voice solutions have basically the same components. <br /><br />Don’t get me wrong, Microsoft Lync is a fantastic solution and a great option for totally new deployments. But sometimes it makes sense to leverage the best-of-breed approach if you already have an investment in a core voice solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2158853543793456735.post-13718222283892778222011-10-13T18:56:21.451-07:002011-10-13T18:56:21.451-07:00TrapperB, split tunnel is a common solution. I hav...TrapperB, split tunnel is a common solution. I have a script somewhere of simple Windows 7 Firewall rules to enable the relevant media to bypass the VPN, nothing fancy really. In addition, we increasingly see customers use DirectAccess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2158853543793456735.post-74034651751391356452011-10-13T15:25:10.970-07:002011-10-13T15:25:10.970-07:00We are looking at a VPN conundrum that hits close ...We are looking at a VPN conundrum that hits close to your post: how do you define split tunnel rules that allow 99% of PC traffic to go in the VPN tunnel, but allow Lync traffic to go straight to the Edge. Voice, video and desktop sharing fall apart when forced through our current VPN software on the remote desktop.TrapperBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07231908644012639299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2158853543793456735.post-21987809627989461932011-10-10T14:09:47.185-07:002011-10-10T14:09:47.185-07:00That's so far the best documented argument to ...That's so far the best documented argument to show Lync as an alternative to the PBX.<br />Even if you compared with a unique solution from the competition it would be complex.<br /><br />Some manufactures create plugins to show integration with Lync, but it's becoming more a more visible to customers: "Why do I have to pay for two voice products?"<br /><br />The number of questions "Can I use Lync as the only phone system?" is increasing, and your posts are helping that ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com